94 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3570408)
1. Organization of screening in technically advanced countries: Iceland.
Geirsson G
IARC Sci Publ; 1986; (76):239-50. PubMed ID: 3570408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cervical cancer screening in Iceland: a case-control study.
Geirsson G; Kristiansdottir R; Sigurdsson K; Moss S; Tulinius H
IARC Sci Publ; 1986; (76):37-41. PubMed ID: 3570413
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.
Andrae B; Kemetli L; Sparén P; Silfverdal L; Strander B; Ryd W; Dillner J; Törnberg S
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):622-9. PubMed ID: 18445828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A screening programme for cervical cancer that worked.
Hakama M; Louhivuori K
Cancer Surv; 1988; 7(3):403-16. PubMed ID: 3242792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Tumours in Iceland. 5. Malignant tumours of the cervix uteri. Histological types, clinical stages and the effect of mass screening.
Geirsson G; Jóhannesson G; Tulinius H
Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand A; 1982 Mar; 90(2):139-43. PubMed ID: 7080821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Invasive cervical cancer: a failure of screening.
Spayne J; Ackerman I; Milosevic M; Seidenfeld A; Covens A; Paszat L
Eur J Public Health; 2008 Apr; 18(2):162-5. PubMed ID: 17483491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Risk of invasive cervical cancer after Pap smears: the protective effect of multiple negatives.
Coldman A; Phillips N; Kan L; Matisic J; Benedet L; Towers L
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):7-11. PubMed ID: 15814014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessing the feasibility of single lifetime PAP smear evaluation between 41-50 years of age as strategy for cervical cancer control in developing countries from our 32 years of experience of hospital-based routine cytological screening.
Misra JS; Gupta HP; Das V
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Dec; 31(6):376-9. PubMed ID: 15540174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Screening history of women in Malmö with invasive cervical cancer.
Lindqvist PG; Hellsten C; Rippe A
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Mar; 137(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 17210219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cervical cancer screening in a rural population of Zimbabwe.
Thistle PJ; Chirenje ZM
Cent Afr J Med; 1997 Sep; 43(9):246-51. PubMed ID: 9509642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Are analyses of cytological cervix smears from young women more harmful than beneficial?].
Skjeldestad FE; Hagen B; Hagmar B; Iversen OE; Juvkam KH; Steen R; Thoresen S; Hareide B
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2007 Jun; 127(13):1782-5. PubMed ID: 17599128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. High-grade cervical abnormalities and screening intervals in New South Wales, Australia.
Schindeler S; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Baker D
J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 18416954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process.
Leyden WA; Manos MM; Geiger AM; Weinmann S; Mouchawar J; Bischoff K; Yood MU; Gilbert J; Taplin SH
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(9):675-83. PubMed ID: 15870438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of screening for cancer in the Nordic countries on deaths, cost and quality of life up to the year 2017.
Hristova L; Hakama M
Acta Oncol; 1997; 36 Suppl 9():1-60. PubMed ID: 9143316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries.
Sankaranarayanan R; Budukh AM; Rajkumar R
Bull World Health Organ; 2001; 79(10):954-62. PubMed ID: 11693978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Differences in screening history, tumour characteristics and survival between women with screen-detected versus not screen-detected cervical cancer in the east of The Netherlands, 1992-2001.
van der Aa MA; Schutter EM; Looijen-Salamon M; Martens JE; Siesling S
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Aug; 139(2):204-9. PubMed ID: 18093720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improvement in protection against adenocarcinoma of the cervix resulting from participation in cervical screening.
Mitchell H; Hocking J; Saville M
Cancer; 2003 Dec; 99(6):336-41. PubMed ID: 14681940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cervical cancer screening and the older woman: obstacles and opportunities.
Brooks SE
Cancer Pract; 1996; 4(3):125-9. PubMed ID: 8826140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Follow-up of non-negative cervical cytological smears in the county of Funen].
Dahl MB; Hølund B; Sørensen B; Ahrons S; Grinsted P; Poulsen EF
Ugeskr Laeger; 1998 Sep; 160(40):5798-801. PubMed ID: 9782760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Can breast and cervical cancer screening visits be used to enhance colorectal cancer screening?
Carlos RC; Fendrick AM; Ellis J; Bernstein SJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2004 Oct; 1(10):769-76. PubMed ID: 17411698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
